The imprisonment of a crime lord
Caruana Caruana (71 at the time of this
writing) was at one time considered a very successful leader in the Mafia. He
and his two brothers had so much money; they would back up a pickup at the
Montreal Credit Union with hockey bags full of money and deposit the money in
their accounts. Caruana was nicknamed the ‘Rothschild of the Mafia’. Their illegal
drugs global empire extended across three continents and it seemed that Caruana
was untouchable by the police. Eventually however, in 1986, Canadian justice
reached out and finally got a tight grip on Caruana’s neck and dragged him
right into prison where he still incarcerated at the time of this writing.
Ever since his incarceration twenty-eight
years ago, he has tried to find ways to
get the courts to permit him to wiggle out of prison but his efforts have
always been in vain.
In March 1986, he was sentenced to
twenty years in prison following
his conviction for the offences of import/export and conspiracy to import/export
heroin. He was eventually eligible for parole. While on
parole, he was again charged with conspiracy to import and conspiracy to
traffic in cocaine. He was convicted again for the new offences and
sentenced to serve eighteen years in prison, to be served concurrently with the
remainder of his 1986 sentence. As a result, his aggregate sentence was
thirty-one years, eleven months and eighteen days, his statutory release date being
the 12th of August, 2011. However, his incarceration wouldn’t expire
until the 24th of February, 2018
since his parole eligibility date was long past.
If he thought he had a problem in
Canada, he had another problem in Italy. He was committed
by Italian authorities to stand trial in Italy in 1994 for his role in a crime
family and his involvement in an international drug conspiracy between 1977 and
1986. He was tried along with a number of other defendants. Prior
to the commencement of the trial, the criminal court in Italy found that Caruana
was a “defaulter”. He did not appear at his trial. I don’t know if he was
on parole then or still in custody. In any case, the Italian court proceeded in
his absence. Caruana was represented by counsel at the trial so he had to
know that he was being charged. He was
convicted of offences relating to his role in the international drug conspiracy
and with the crime group.
In 1997, Caruana appealed his convictions.
This time he had the benefit of both counsel of his choice and court-appointed
counsel but, again, he was not present at the hearing of the appeal. His
appeal was dismissed and, later in 1997, the Italian appeal court sentenced him
to twenty-one years and ten months imprisonment. An enforcement order was
issued by the Italian court on February 6, 1998, but no part of the sentence
was served as Caruana had “absconded”.
In
2000, Caruana pleaded guilty to drug trafficking in Canada and was sentenced to
eighteen more years in prison.
In 2003, Italy began extradition
proceedings. At that time, Caruana was entitled to being considered for
conditional release from the Canadian prison in which he was serving his
sentence for the Canadian offences. The record of the case against Caruana
provided by Italy showed his involvement with a crime family, international
drug transactions and transfers of large sums of money to facilitate those
transactions. The evidence came from informants who had also been
charged, electronic surveillance and investigators. In November 2004, Caruana
was ordered committed for surrender on the Italian offences.
Caruana made submissions to the Canadian Minister
of Justice on February 24, 2005, arguing that it would be abusive to surrender
him because the trial in Italy was conducted in his absence and he had no
further right of appeal or review in that country. On November 17, 2005, the
Minister decided against him and ordered Caruana’s surrender to Italy, finding
that it was not unjust or oppressive to surrender him given the findings of the
extradition judge and that Caruana would be entitled to seek a review of his
convictions in Italy. The Minister found that assurances of a new trial
were not necessary since he had respect for the Italian concept of justice. On
May 10, 2006, Caruana made further submissions to the successor Minister of Justice
and asked that the Minister rescind the surrender order. The new Minister
declined to reconsider the surrender order.
He appealed his committal and sought a judicial
review of the Minister’s surrender order. His appeal ended up before the
Canadian Federal Court of Appeal in 2007.
He sought to introduce as fresh evidence, the
opinion of Ms. Antonella Cuccureddu, an Italian lawyer, regarding whether or
not he would be able to successfully obtain a review of his Italian convictions
under provisions in Italian criminal law procedure.
This evidence could have been adduced at the
previous proceedings before the committal judge or the Minister or both.
Ms. Cuccureddu was known to Caruana prior to the extradition hearing in October
2004, as she was scheduled to give sworn testimony and be cross-examined in
September 2004. Caruana didn’t seek to ask her opinion when she was in the
witness box at the committal hearing nor did he include it in support of his
submissions to the Minister in February 2005 or May 2006. That was stupid
omissions on Caruana’s part.
This fresh evidence relates to the availability
of the Italian review process and what rights Caruana will have if he was
extradited. That matter is the very essence of the position argued by Caruana’s
lawyer at committal and before the Minister so it cannot be said that the issue
was new. In the view of the Court of Appeal, the proposed fresh evidence came
too late in the process to be adduced for the first time at his appeal and therefore
ought not to be admitted.
His lawyer argued that section 7 of the Charter
was violated because he is to be surrendered to Italy where he was convicted in
absentia and he has no assurance of a new trial.
That argument was shot down because the Italian
authorities had already confirmed that Caruana could seek a review of his
conviction. Furthermore, there was nothing in the record to indicate that
Caruana had sought to bring such a review application. To that extent,
the fresh evidence was about the hypothetical outcome of proceedings that wasn’t
necessary. It was speculative at best. Moreover, the information in
his affidavit failed to demonstrate that Caruana’s surrender would be unjust or
oppressive and, thus, the issue was not relevant to the Minister’s surrender
decision.
His lawyer argued that his client wouldn’t get a
fair trial in Italy. The fact that a foreign state has a different legal system
does not mean that its system of justice is unfair. The principles of
fundamental justice in the extradition context recognize that differences in
the criminal justice systems of other jurisdictions are to be respected and
that the Charter guarantees are not to be given extraterritorial effect
to govern how criminal proceedings in a foreign state are conducted.
His lawyer had led no evidence to suggest that
the safeguards which exist in the Italian justice system in respect of in
absentia proceedings operate unfairly, either generally or in Caruana’s
specific circumstances. The fact that the trial proceeded in absentia and
the question of whether Caruana is to be granted a review of his convictions
are matters that are to be determined by Italy.
His lawyer also argued that his was committed on
unreliable evidence and, consequently, his committal could not stand.
There couldn’t be any doubt that Caruana had
indulged in international criminal activity. The evidence in the record of the
case was sufficient to justify him being incarcerated. It was neither manifestly unreliable or
defective. Nor is it vague or conclusory. It establishes a prima
facie case that he was one of the organizing forces of an international
heroin drug conspiracy, a member of a crime group and involved in money
laundering. The evidence consisted not only of the testimony of co-operating
accomplices but also of bank documents showing that he had received more than
$35,000,000 in cash in his various bank accounts of which money was
subsequently transferred to Switzerland and paid to people associated with
international drug trafficking. He didn’t put forth any evidence to
undermine that what was contained in the record of the case.
Caruana’s appeal was refused so in desperation,
his lawyer appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court to consider Caruana’s appeal.
In 2007, that court also dismissed his appeal without giving its reason. He was
then sent to Italy to face trial. He was convicted again and is now serving his
Italian 21-year sentence in a prison on the Island of Sardinia. Most of his
time in that prison is in solitary confinement. That is probably for his own protection.
Italy has another charge they want to slap on
him but they would have to argue their case in Canada to justify trying Caruana
for the second offence because he wasn’t extradited for that second offence. The
Italian authorities have until 2021 to put him on trial for that second charge
as the statute of limitation in Italy is 25 years from the date of that crime.
By the time he is released from prison in Italy, he will be a very old
man who will have spent a great deal of his latter years in prison. Crime
certainly paid him well in his younger days but at such a price. Despite all
the money he had prior to the time of his first arrest, none of it saved him
from imprisonment. Was it worth it? I
can’t help but wonder if Caruana thinks it was worth it.
Justice is the firm
and constant intention to render to everyone that which is due to them and that
includes punishment. The wheel of
justice grinds slowly and in Caruana’s case, it ground him into dust.
No comments:
Post a Comment